The Supreme Court of India on Thursday set aside for want of more
facts a Bombay High
Court judgment allowing the accused in the July 2006 Mumbai train
blasts to summon Additional Home Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra
and three Deputy Police Commissioner of Police (DCP).
The Apex Court bench comprising
Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar however
allowed the accused to file an appeal against the judgment.
"From different angles and
perspectives based on the provisions of the Evidence Act and MCOCA
examined on the basis of submissions advanced by the learned
counsel representing the rival parties, it is inevitable for us to
conclude, that the accused-respondents cannot be permitted to
summon the witnesses for the specific objective sought to be
achieved by them", said the 60 pages Supreme Court judgment.
Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari,
one of the accused in the July 2006 Mumbai train blast case, had
filed a petition in the Trial Court for summoning Chitkala Zutshi,
Additional Chief Secretary (Home Department) and DCPs Vishwas
Nangre Patil, Milind Bharambe as Dilip Sawant for cross
In its petition, the accused had
stated that the three DCPs had recorded the confessional statements
of few of the alleged members of the Indian Mujahideen.
The objective of the
accused (of producing these witnesses in defence) was to show,
that others were responsible for actions for which the accused were
The Trial Court however in its
judgment in its order dated August 01, 2012 declined the prayer.
As a result, Ansari approached the
Bombay High Court. In response to his plea, the Bombay Court on
November 26, 2012 ordered in Ansar's favour allowing him to summon
Zutshi and the three Deputy Commissioner of Police Patil, Bharambe
and Sawant and examine them as witnesses for the defence.
The Maharashtra government appealed
in the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court verdict which
now stands set aside.
The accused is now intending to file a
review petition against the judgment.
"We will surely be filing a review
petition after studying the judgment", Advocate Shahid Nadeem
Ansari said while talking to ummid.com.